Collaboration -- A More Sure Path to Genius?

The question we're posing here has been asked and hinted at throughout the last blog topic, in particular. And then, Annonymous posted the following comment, which I'd like to use as the springboard into the topic of genius and collaboration:

*******************

"Chris suggested, in an earlier blog entry, that we consider our so-called collective consciousness. According to Chris, we all possess and own this entity. And I agree with Chris (and Jung) about the existence of such communal intelligence property (I also believe that the stated fear and mistrust of the concept is real and present in our thinking).

Chris then asked, in a later blog, the following question: "(Or) is there something (or some perspective or wisdom itself) beyond ethics (and thus possibly sourced by genius -- or the whole) which possibly enables a more holistically balanced manifestation of genius?”It seems reasonable to (in response to Chris’ question) suggest that maybe the “higher ethic” or “wisdom” is simply the act of considering the collective consciousness before the personal intellect (or genius)?

Wouldn’t that create what he called a “more holistically balanced manifestation of genius?”In light of MM’s latest entry, I have personally decided to look at trans generational intelligence, thought, and genius as parts of that greater collective consciousness. Consequently then, knowledge and wisdom and truth about old AND new ways of navigating through this territory called life (and its limitations), becomes a process greatly enriched by ALL contributions and contributors. No matter which generation contributes the knowledge."

*********************

In light of Annonyomous' questions about generational collaboration, I'd like to expand that notion to include any perceived barriers that might seemingly separate us and invite us to consider the following questions:

Is the act of collaboration, in a very real way, a surrendering of the ego? A realization that by combining our ideas, talents, etc. with another (or others) we will be able to create something beyond our own immediate ability?

As we begin to consider those questions, I'd also like to clarify a distinction between toleration, cooperation, and collaboration. (I'm slowly learning from MM to be concise):

Toleration: Putting up with (learning to cope) with someone's differences.

Cooperation: Working together because we have to (because circumstances or potential consequences of not cooperating) without being willing to consider giving up our point of view.

Both of these, while not optimum, may gradually lead us to trust more in the involvement and participation of others and thus take us toward...

Collaboration: Proactively seeking out the involvement, ideas, and participation of others because we want to (realizing that not only do we perhaps need to, but that our idea will be better for it, that adding or combining other viewpoints and dealing with differences drives innovation and creativity (in essence it approaches differences as assets).

Because of its very nature (actively including more perspectives than my own and trusting in the inherent value of those additonal prespectives) and the mindset required to utilize collaboration, it seems that collaboration will certainly increase the odds that we are better able to understand the ramifications and ripple effect of our actions.

I'd like to suggest that, while toleration and cooperation may be better than their opposites (exclusison and unresolved conflict), that these approaches do not net the benefits described by MM in their description of how they learn collaboratively, nor do those approaches fully take advantage of the increased perspectives and exposure to the whole created by accessing the intelligence across the divides of generation or other differences (as reflected by Annonymous' suggestion).

So... if collaboration, as defined here, creates a greater opportunity to generate a more expansive thought process (and more lanes of access to the collective intelligence and thus a more potent dose of genius)... and, if utilized with practice, generates a higher level of creativity and innovation (which a number of studies indicate that it does)... what can we do to intentionally be more collaborative, model collaboration, promote collaboration, etc.

(I'd invite us to consider real examples that, without sharing things you deem too personal, give us a more clear glimpse of how we might all learn to better access this modality with more confidence and intentionality.

Lisa Lee suggested that anything that does not utilize this more inclusive approach may, in fact, no longer be considered to be genius at all (but instead, short-sightedness). That's a very thought provoking suggestion. What if we no longer gave credence to intelligence used short-sightedly?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Views of those commenting have not been checked for accuracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog publisher or his associates.